One that he makes in about every third blog post is that a person's benefit in sticking with the beliefs of one's tribe on communal issues like climate change often exceed the costs to that person of that person being wrong. It's a collective action problem where an individual pointing out that one's tribe is making a huge mistake just causes friction. The individual has a disincentive from even seriously considering whether her tribe is wrong.

The ironic part about this is that I think it makes sense on an intuitive level, but I don't recall Kahan citing evidence that proves it to be true (you can speculate that it explains studies of motivated reasoning, but that doesn't prove the theory). His emphasis on the science of science communication doesn't always follow in practice.

Wonkbook reports a related take on motivated reasoning, which found that partisans severely reduced their motivated reasoning when given a personal incentive to do so. Wonkbook refers to this proving that partisans are just "liars" but I think the psychology might be a little more subtle than that. Kahan's take might be that the cost analysis of thinking for one's self v. believing what the tribe believes is adjusted in the experiment.

Motivated reasoning is more to do with your own world view. I understood it to be more to do with finding reasons to accept or reject facts based on how important it is to your world view that those facts be correct or not.

The issue of not disagreeing with the tribe - that could be for a lot of different reasons. A basic one is how important or otherwise the 'fact' is to either you or the integrity of the group as a whole. Sometimes it's a matter of it not being worth it to speak up.

A good example earlier this week on WUWT. There was a spate of utterly ridiculous articles and I mean much more nonsensical than normal. One was that earth will be colder than the coldest year in the Little Ice Age in only seven years time. Another was that it's not humans causing CO2 to rise, it's insects. And another was that the Greenland ice sheet is less than 650 years old because vikings lived in Greenland.

The first two passed muster and even garnered a lot of praise. But the Greenland one, well the fake skeptics complained about that one and eventually it was removed from WUWT.

Why did the tribe pick on that one not the others? They were all equally silly. One thing might have been that somewhere inside every fake skeptic is a viking trying to prove that Greenland was green. So they figure they have to defend it.

Another might be that they just decided that particular article would be sufficient to prove to 'alarmists' that they aren't always complete idiots. There was no need to remove the others. A symbolic gesture to common sense, if you like.

I'm not convinced that conservatives are more prone to value the group than liberals. Liberals as individuals are more fluid. less rigid in their thinking I suppose. But when it comes to group behaviour under stress, is there is that much difference between them?

It's a shame because I think the result is that people feel less free to explore ideas for fear the 'other side' will take advantage and see differences as a weakness.

When it comes to defending your tribe from outside attacks politics don't matter. The tribe will come together, differences between group members will be put to one side for the sake of defending the group. On climate blogs you see that kind of group defense from people who understand science as well as those who reject it.

To add, I'm assuming we're not talking about the extremists here. The bottom 8% dismissives, right wing authoritarians or however they be labelled are different from normal liberal vs conservative. They are in a world of their own. Logic doesn't apply and group think is everything.

A bit like paranoid conspiracy theorists all tolerating each others conspiracies, including all the contradictory ones.

Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" provides a good perspective on this. He's done studies about personality and behavior that help characterize and describe the tendency for some to support the status quo. It's not so much right vs. left (in Soviet Russia the "left" was the status quo) but group vs. individual, and what is vs. what could be, conservative vs. innovative.

> To develop a strategy for philanthropy to strengthen climate engagement, I interviewed over 40 climate advocates,more than a dozen representatives from the foundation community, and a dozen academics. My assessment led me to conclude that climate advocates have focused too narrowly on specific policy goals and insufficiently on influencing the larger political landscape. I suggest four ways to improve climate advocacy: Increase focus on medium and longer-term goals; 2) Start with people and not carbon; 3) Focus more on values and less on science; and 4) Evaluate what works and share what we learn.

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.